grade_lookup

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavior: aliases are accepted and it returns multiple categories of grade information. However, it does not mention output format, error behavior, or whether results are normalized beyond the alias examples.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with no filler: the first states the action and output scope, the second explains alias handling with a concrete example. Every part earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, input semantics, and output categories well. It lacks explicit sibling differentiation and return-structure details, but these are partly covered by the simple nature of the tool and the other dimensions.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does by clarifying that the grade parameter refers to a steel grade and by giving concrete alias equivalents (4140 = 42CrMo4 = SCM440), which adds real meaning beyond the bare schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Look up') with a clear resource ('a steel grade') and enumerates the return categories: properties, chemistry, forms, applications, weldability. It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like substitution_check or cert_guide.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given about when to use grade_lookup versus the sibling tools substitution_check or cert_guide. The alias behavior is useful, but the description does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.